Koch, who has sought election to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in six elections, said he has never asked a lawyer for a dime. Because judges run on merit, they don’t have to raise funds for a campaign and thus be indebted to campaign donors.

If elected by popular vote, judges would have to seek donations and the perception would exist that donors receive special consideration.

“That has such a corrosive, terrible effect,” Koch said, adding the merit system reduces the belief that “money talks” in the judicial system.

Under the merit system, woman and minorities have an opportunity to be appointed and later elected as judges and justices.

For example, the state Supreme Court now has three women justices, including Chief Justice Janice M. Holder.

Also, Tennessee has a panel of people, including lawyers and lay people, who evaluate the judges. The panel helps because most people are too busy to name the state Supreme Court justices. The system has been tweaked so now the proceedings are public.

Koch said people should make their voices heard about which method they prefer.

In speaking about his duties, Koch said he spends about 40 percent of his time listening to arguments and writing opinions and about 60 percent of his time dealing with outreach and administrative duties. Justices choose which appeals to hear, prepares to hear an oral argument and writes opinions.

Who evaluates qualifications for these judges, trial lawyers? No thanks. We the people need input into this process. Too many of these judges, answerable to no one have a tendency to legislate from the bench and rule by judicial fiat. That is a dangerous precedent and I don't much care of his honor likes that idea or not. Judges need to be accountable to the people they are charged to serve. Period.

I agree Soc,This also invites an element of who payed who for a position. Money will talk, it will just be behind closed doors. Who picks the panel of lawyers and lay people that evaluate the judges? This whole article concerns me.